Hunter was definitely an excellent workhorse in his prime, there's no denying that. But Hunter pitched in a pitcher's era, in a pitcher's park, with great defensive support. Few have shown the feats of durability through innings and complete games that Hunter did during his prime. But while his ability and willingness to go deep into games took care of one factor, it was the context he pitched in that most contributed to those zeroes.

Let's say Hunter not only pitched to contact, but that he was great at pitching to spots where, when the ball was put in play, his fielders could best take advantage. It seems that if he was so great at taking advantage of his defense, then that park and era adjusted ERA+ of 105 should have been a lot better. Considering he was never a great pitcher at his best, even if I gave him full credit for pitching to the score, and assume his intangibles are better than the most Derek Jeter has been credited with, he would zoom all the way up to just outside my personal Hall. I can bend over backwards to accommodate Hunter's candidacy, but I can't support him.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/16/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):Question is, how many pitchers did that back in the 70s? I don't know the answer. If he's the only one, then yes, it's an impressive feat and he probably deserves HOF inclusion.

My guess is you'll find a few. The Niekros, the Perrys, Carlton, Sutton, Jenkins, Ryan(came in a little later) all had long enough careers in that era. But you'll also probably find they all have ERA over 3 and that they're in the HOF.

This.

And, quite honestly, I'm not sure I put ANY of them in MY HOF. Just saying, during that era, being a workhorse with a 3ish ERA was considered Hall-worthy.

How about Jim Bottomley.....I am slightly biased towards him, but according to Bill James #'s he just about the average Hall of famer, even though James himself says "it wasnt the best, but not the worst choice." Rob Neyer I believe said he is a no-doubt hof........he compares to mark grace and john olerud - not so good, but also to Edgar Martinez & Don mattingly.....also to Joe Medwick, who is a hof.........

Only 7 'real good-great' seasons, but a couple of them were better than great, which helps, and had 12 Rbi's in one game, which I'm sure helped out his "legend".....also considered a 'clutch rbi' hitter for his time, whatever that was/is worth...... Discuss?

I think your post brings up an interesting point. I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on careers vs periods of dominance. Often when looking back (or even when discussing current candidates) we look at their career numbers. Let's say a guy has fairly average-to-slightly above average career numbers, but for a 4-6 year stretch, he was the best player on the planet (some might put Koufax on this category, though his career numbers were pretty solid). Does that make him Hall worthy?

Posted by 1899_spiders on 2/17/2012 11:09:00 AM (view original):Hunter was definitely an excellent workhorse in his prime, there's no denying that. But Hunter pitched in a pitcher's era, in a pitcher's park, with great defensive support. Few have shown the feats of durability through innings and complete games that Hunter did during his prime. But while his ability and willingness to go deep into games took care of one factor, it was the context he pitched in that most contributed to those zeroes.

Let's say Hunter not only pitched to contact, but that he was great at pitching to spots where, when the ball was put in play, his fielders could best take advantage. It seems that if he was so great at taking advantage of his defense, then that park and era adjusted ERA+ of 105 should have been a lot better. Considering he was never a great pitcher at his best, even if I gave him full credit for pitching to the score, and assume his intangibles are better than the most Derek Jeter has been credited with, he would zoom all the way up to just outside my personal Hall. I can bend over backwards to accommodate Hunter's candidacy, but I can't support him.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/16/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):Question is, how many pitchers did that back in the 70s? I don't know the answer. If he's the only one, then yes, it's an impressive feat and he probably deserves HOF inclusion.

My guess is you'll find a few. The Niekros, the Perrys, Carlton, Sutton, Jenkins, Ryan(came in a little later) all had long enough careers in that era. But you'll also probably find they all have ERA over 3 and that they're in the HOF.

This.

And, quite honestly, I'm not sure I put ANY of them in MY HOF. Just saying, during that era, being a workhorse with a 3ish ERA was considered Hall-worthy.